Forward

The drawing of district boundaries for state legislatures and congressional seats is one of the most significant events in American politics. In California in the 1970's the act proved so intense that the Legislature and the Governor, charged by the Constitution with establishing new district boundaries following each decennial census, were unable to agree and-in the words of the Court--reached an impasse.

When the Supreme Court of California was forced to enter the picture, it appointed three Special Masters to hold public hearings with respect both to criteria for districting and proposed plans to implement such criteria, and to recommend to the Court plans for possible adoption together with their underlying rationale. This the Masters proceeded to do, following their appointment in May 1973. Their report was filed with the Supreme Court on August 31, 1973, and--with the slightest modifications-adopted by the Court in its decision in November 1973.

In their report, the Masters noted that "A request has been received from the University of California Institute of Governmental Studies in Berkeley that its facilities be used as a depository of all material lodged with the Masters, with the understanding that the materials received will be safely stored, catalogued and made available for public and scholarly use." The Masters went on to recommend that "pertinent materials that have been lodged with the Masters be released to the Institute," and the Supreme Court approved this recommendation.

The resulting materials, described in the following inventory, do not constitute a complete account of the tumultuous history of redistricting in the 1970's. Such an account will have to rely on legislative reports, newspapers and periodicals, and other testimony not included in the Masters' records. But the Masters' papers do provide an essential element in this overall history. It is our hope that this collection will stimulate and aid the necessary scholarship and writing which will inform the citizenry of the background and implications of both the legislative­executive impasse and the Court's resolution of it.

Eugene C. Lee

Preface

The collection of papers deposited in the Institute of Governmental Studies consists of the Register of Official Records and Written Presentations, together with the items and exhibits entered on it; legal documents and other information presented to or requested by the Masters concerning the consolidated cases and some earlier related cases and efforts at reapportionment; office files; and working papers, maps, etc. produced by the Masters in the course of their work.

In this inventory the material is divided into four sections, with brief introductions explaining the contents and their arrangement. The "Register of Official Records and Written Presentations" is reproduced as Attachment 1 since it was the guide used in identifying and arranging the documents listed in Section 1. The chronologies of legislative efforts at reapportionment and judicial procedures which culminated in the acceptance of the Special Masters' plan by the Supreme Court are presented as background and to provide an indication of other official sources of information essential to an understanding of the problem.

The work of identifying, organizing and listing the documents was accomplished by Robert H. McDonald, with the assistance of Chris Martiniak and William Goodman, formerly Research Assistants to the Chief Counsel for the Special Masters on Reapportionment. In spite of their best efforts they could not identify the source and/or intended purpose of some items. These are included in Section 4, Miscellaneous, and described as specifically as available information permits.

Dorothy Simpson

Special Masters on Reapportionment

Martin J. Coughlin, Presiding
Harold F. Collins
Alvin E. Weinberger

Paul L. McKaskle, Chief Counsel

Chronology of Legislative Attempts at Reapportioning

This includes only those bills, resolutions or Constitutional amendments which passed at least one house. Documents are listed in order of date of first reading.

1970 (Regular session)
January 7	AB 105,	An act ... relating to reapportionment [requires county clerks to provide information for the use of the Legislature or legislative committees for use in reapportionment] January 7, read first time. March 10, passed and sent to Senate. June 19, passed and sent to Assembly. July 3, signed by Governor.
1971 (Regular session)
January 4	SB 17,	An act ... relating to reapportionment [reapportions Congressional districts] January 4, read first time. November 29, passed and sent to Assembly. January 3, 1972, from Assembly without further action.
January 4	SB 18,	An act ... relating to reapportionment [reapportions Senate and Assembly districts] January 4, read first time. November 11, passed and sent to Assembly. November 23, passed. November 24, sent to Senate. December 2, died on file.
December 4 [Legislative day Dec. 2]		Regular session adjourns without passing valid legislation as required by Constitution. Reapportionment Commission activated. (See Masters' Chronology).
1971 (First Extra session)
December 7	AB 12,	An act ... relating to reapportionment, and calling for an election, to take effect immediately [reapportions Assembly districts and provides Presidential and direct primary elections shall be held on June 13, 1972] December 7, read first time. December 18, passed and sent to Senate. December 20, passed and sent to Assembly. December 30, vetoed by Governor. January 4, 1972, veto sustained.
December 7	AB 16,	An act ... relating to reapportionment and calling an election, to take effect immediately [reapportions Congressional districts] December 7, read first time. December 18, passed and sent to Senate. December 20, passed and sent to Assembly. December 30, amendments concurred in. December 30, vetoed by Governor. January 4, 1972, veto sustained.
December 7	ACR 1,	Relative to reapportionment [reapportions Assembly districts] December 7, read first time. December 18, adopted and sent to Senate. December 20, adopted and sent to Assembly. December 22, recorded by Secretary of State.
December 7	ACR 2,	Relative to reapportionment [reapportions legislative districts] December 7, read first time. December 18, adopted and sent to Senate. December 20, stricken from Senate file.
December 7	SB 2,	An act relating to Senatorial reapportionment and calling an election to take effect immediately [reapportions state Senate districts, provides that Presidential and direct primary elections shall be held on June 13, 1972] December 7, read first time. December 18, passed and sent to Assembly. December 20, passed and sent to Senate. December 20, Senate concurs in Assembly amendment. December 30, vetoed by Governor. March 1, 1972, died on file (veto stands).
December 7	SB 5,	An act ... relating to Congressional reapportionment, and calling an election, to take effect immediately [reapportions Congressional districts] December 7, read first time. December 17, passed and to Assembly. March 1, 1972, from Assembly without further action.
December 19	SCR 2,	Relative to reapportionment [reapportions Senatorial districts] December 19, read first time, adopted and sent to Assembly. December 20, adopted and sent to Senate. December 22, filed with Secretary of State.
1972 (Regular session)
January 11	SB 23,	An act ... relating to reapportionment [reapportions Senatorial districts] January 11, read first time. May 2, passed and sent to Assembly. December 1, from Assembly without further action.
1973 (Regular session)
January 25	AB 164,	An act ... relating to reapportionment [reapportions Assembly, Senatorial and Congressional districts] January 25, read first time. May 17, passed and sent to Senate. June 5, passed and sent to Assembly. September 10, to inactive file.
February 7	SB 195,	An act ... relating to reapportionment [reapportions Assembly, Senatorial and Congressional districts] February 7, read first time. May 23, passed and sent to Assembly. June 14, passed and sent to Senate, Senate concurs in Assembly amendment. June 27, vetoed by Governor. January 21, 1974, died on active file pursuant to Joint Rule 58.5

Chronology of Judicial Procedures Leading to Reapportionment

December 4, 1971	[Legislative date December 2] - Legislature adjourned without passing a reapportionment plan as required by the Constitution. Reapportionment Commission empowered to act pursuant to Article IV, Section 6 of the California Constitution.
December 15, 1971	Reapportionment Commission convened. Legislature v. Reinecke (Sac.7917) filed with Supreme Court.
December 27, 1971	Brown v. Reagan (Sac.7919) filed with Supreme Court.
January 6, 1972	Members of the U.S. House of Representatives v. Reagan (Sac.7923) filed with Supreme Court.
January 18, 1972	The Supreme Court held that the Reapportionment Commission had no jurisdiction, and that the Governor's vetoes stand. Unless the Legislature enacted valid reapportionment statutes in time for the 1972 elections, the present statutes apportioning the Legislature would remain in effect; Congressional districts would be those set forth in AB 16, 1971 First Extraordinary Session. The Court retained jurisdiction to draft new reapportionment plans if the Legislature failed to enact valid legislation by the close of its 1972 regular session. (Consolidated cases, Sac.7917, 7919, 7923).
May 10, 1972	The Court modified its order of January 18 to permit the Legislature to act either in a regular or special session as long as it did so by the end of 1972.
March 23, 1973	A Special Order of the Court outlined the procedure it would follow in developing new district lines. Three Special Masters were to be appointed to hold hearings and submit recommendations by August 31, the Court to begin hearing oral arguments after thirty days (to allow time to submit briefs). The Court would consider halting its proceedings should the Legislature adopt valid plans before the Court completed its work.
May 1, 1973	The Special Masters were appointed and the Presiding Master designated.
August 31, 1973	The Special Masters presented their report and recommendations.
November 28, 1973	The Court announced its decision to implement the recommendations of the Special Masters, with minor changes only.